This text is devoted to a discussion of current achievements in the psychology of creativity, as well as to the further development of the field. It is concerned with a criticism of former and current theses in the field of the psychology of creativity discussed by Glăveanu (2014). The arguments presented indicate that, despite Glăveanu’s (2014) proposition, the psychology of creativity is not in crisis. It is pointed out that the difference in views between supporters of the social psychology approach to creativity and psychology researchers oriented towards the study of creative potential on how to conduct creativity research, stems from a concentration on different levels of creativity, and not necessarily from an ineffective theory of creativity. As a consequence of these different perceptions of creativity at its particular levels, determining the prime standard of creative potential is not sufficient to understand the social conditioning of creative activity and the social assessment of creativity, and vice versa.
, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J.Y. Shah & W.L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434-447). New York: Guilford.
Eagly, A., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from distributions of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 735-754.
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years